Bike Forums - Tires: tread or no tread?

Bike Forums (https://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)

- Road Cycling (https://www.bikeforums.net/road-cycling/)

- - Tires: tread or no tread? (https://www.bikeforums.net/road-cycling/1050216-tires-tread-no-tread.html)

Tires: tread or no tread?

I'm basically this talking 25mm road tires...do you pick tires with a slight tread, or true slicks?

If you have tried both, do you notice a difference in traction, ride, or anything else? Which is better for normal road riding?

Depends. For straight dry pavement riding, I like slicks. Fastest, stick best. For wet winter riding when there might be some grit on the road, the tires which work best for me have a little tread on either side of the contact patch. I don't know whether that's really an advantage or not, but I suspect it might help with wet, uneven pavement.

I believe I read an article on Sheldon Brown's website on this. Looked it up and he says smooth tires get as good of traction as treaded, sometimes better. This is for pavement riding. Traction has more to do with tire composition, road surface and tire pressure. On hard surfaces smooth is better and creates less drag.
Most of the popular tires have some form of tread though. Continental and Vittoria are what I use and each has a pattern of sorts

tread is silly in my mind for a 23-25c tyre. What water is it supposed to displace while still providing traction?? What would anyone be doing riding through water deep enough to actually need such tread (regarding physics, not HTFU rules etc) How is that same said tread supposed to provide traction in mud etc with such a tiny tire at such speeds as roadies (23mph average of course) do their recovery rides??

The extra fine tread on the nicest tires makes it easier to monitor tire wear.

Pure slicks don't necessarily offer better traction or lower rolling resistance... it depends on tire construction and compound.

For decades, amateur bicyclists believed Jobst Brandt that slick tires were best. Then this controversial article appeared earlier this year. Who is correct?

https://janheine.wordpress.com/2016/...nt-stick-well/
and a follow-up:
https://janheine.wordpress.com/2016/...ing-something/

Slicks always for the road.

I never ride in ice or snow.

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnny99 (Post 18562705)

For a decades, amateur bicyclists believed Jobst Brandt that slick tires were best. Then this controversial article appeared earlier this year. Who is correct?

https://janheine.wordpress.com/2016/...nt-stick-well/
and a follow-up:
https://janheine.wordpress.com/2016/...ing-something/

Jan needs to talk with motorcyclists.

I use both, and prefer a light file tread always. It's not that I notice it so much in the dry, but because of what must be behind the perceived improvement in the wet, I reckon it helps in the dry, too.

My notion is that roads, even nice ones, are highly irregular surfaces, and the low ridges of a file tread provide just a bit more working edges and surface area to get into those irregularities which a smooth tread would not. When traction is compromised, as in the wet, I think I can feel the extra grip. When dry, I think there is sufficient traction from a smooth tread to test my resolve, but I feel the mechanics of why textured I grip work the same.

I currently have wheels shod with Panaracer Race Type A and Scwalbe One on the smooth tread side, and Panaracer GravelKings (three sizes) and Schwalbe S-One on the light tread side. I guess I'd count my Vittoria Randonneurs as treaded, too, but they've an inverted, or grooved, tread which I don't think is worth much of anything, except maybe, maybe, hard surfaces with fine loose particulate on top. Maybe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnny99 (Post 18562705)

Yep. But this is probably the only matter I've ever agreed with Heine on!

EDIT: reading the follow-up article, if Jan is claiming breaking the "wider/lower pressure is better" news, then I must concede I agree him there, too. I haven't read BQ in years; maybe I've grown more than I thought, and align with Heine more now, too. Oooh, that's scary!

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnny99 (Post 18562705)

I don't know who's right, but I have a hard time trusting a guy that rides with that much crap on his bike. Is that his "bug out bag" on the handlebar, just in case there is a zombie apocalypse while he is out riding? Damn. Seriously though, I don't think he and I are doing the same kind of riding.

I've been doing a casual spin-test on my driveway.

So far all qualitative. Sometime I'll get the ability to to a true quantitative test. Here are some notes I posted the other day, mainly talking about the Tannus tires which seem to have the worst traction, and skidding when wet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CliffordK (Post 18552324)

My driveway is short, paved, with about a 1/8 mile climb that peaks at about 16% slope (only a couple dozen yards), and gets a moderate dusting of fir needles (which I'm not knocking off quickly enough now that I stopped driving).

When wet, I loose traction.

I've found that I can use it as a qualitative judgement for tire traction.

I'm hoping to eventually get setup for a quantitative traction assessment, but I'm not quite there yet.

It is a tough course for a road tire. I can either climb the hill standing or sitting, and either on my Colnago Super, or my Litespeed (or other bikes).

The Colnago has a relatively short wheelbase for a late 1960's model bike, and the gearing only supports a standing hill climb. The Litespeed has a relatively long wheelbase, and I can climb either standing or seated. This actually makes a significant difference in weight distribution, and correspondingly traction. Unfortunately, wheels aren't interchangeable between the bikes. 126mm vs 135mm. The Litespeed is the one that got the Tannus tires.

Standing, one also tends to throw the weight forward, off of the rear wheel, and have more abrupt power bursts, and correspondingly less traction. Sitting one gets more weight on the rear (sometimes to the point of too little weight on the front, with 100% of the weight on the rear), and a bit more even power, but I run at fairly low cadence, so it is still a pretty harsh power cycle.

The fir needles and wet conditions both contribute to poor traction.

I only have a few data points with different tires.

Schwalbe Marathon Plus 25mm. This tire has a moderate, relatively fast wearing tread, and by far has the best traction. I mainly rode it on the Colnago, and could make it up the hill standing. It would break loose periodically, but I would retain about 50% traction as the tire would spin.

Origin8 Elimin8er, 25mm, balding. Lots of trouble with the standing hill climb (Colnago). It would spin like on ice for a complete half crank revolution. However, on the Litespeed, it would generally be ok for a seated hillclimb.

Panaracer Pasela, 25mm. Tire had light tread when new, and eventually wore pretty bald. Mainly ridden on the Litespeed. Bad for standing hill climb (on the Litespeed), but generally ok for seated hillclimb. Overall, I would put it comparable to the Elimin8er.

Cargo bike with 20x4 1/4 rear tire. Very long wheelbase. Minimal tread. That bike also has quite a few problems on the hill, especially if towing. So, just wide doesn't make it better. With a light rear load, weight distribution is somewhat off of the rear tire.

Tannus 23mm solid tire (only testable on the Litespeed). I'd put this by far at the bottom of my list for road tires. It is the only tire that I started noticing an audible (and felt loss of traction) squeak/chirp with seated climbing under moderately wet conditions. Usually with the moderate wet conditions, it does regain traction and I can continue. However, under severe wet conditions (currently raining, or just after a heavy rain storm), I spin when seated, and end up unable to continue, and walking the hill.

The store incident.
Flat grocery store parking lot. Wet conditions (after rain, but not raining at the time). I pulled on the lot on private drive, then turned left between rows of parked cars at about 8 MPH. STRAVA choked at that moment, so data is jumpy. A car cut across rows directly in front of me. I think I only hit the rear brake with moderate pressure. I may not have hit the front brake. This induced both a skid, and a sidways slide with the rear wheel of the bike.

So far, I haven't had any traction problems on any other hills, standing or seated.

Needless to say, I am a bit leery about high speed wet cornering, and haven't had any issues yet.

So, as far as tread, the Schwalbe Marathon Plus has pretty course tread, and seems to me to have by far the best traction. But, in the 1000 miles or so that I rode the tire, I got a lot of wear and a good flat spot, so I think it may have a fairly soft, fast wearing rubber which may also contribute to traction.

The Panaracer Pasela had a light tread (now worn off of the rear), but I didn't think it had quite as good of traction as the Marathons, although I was using them on a different bike.

The Elimin8ers were slick, and the tire that I had first noticed the issue of spinning with.

And, the Tannus (solid rubber) tires are also slick, narrow, and have very poor wet traction.

So, I can say different tires are certainly different, but tread isn't the only variable. Perhaps I'll try to do a comparison between a GP4s and a Gator Harshell, both with similar tread, but different rubber.

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnny99 (Post 18562705)

The problem I have with the first article is that F1 (and NASCAR, though I rarely watch it) switch to treaded tires when it rains. I think MotoGP uses treads as well in wet weather. The author makes it seem like it's an all-or-nothing proposition in racing when it's not. Just like cycling, there are options based on environment and conditions. Anyway, that's how I read the article.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thin_concrete (Post 18563237)

The problem I have with the first article is that F1 (and NASCAR, though I rarely watch it) switch to treaded tires when it rains. I think MotoGP uses treads as well in wet weather.

Pretty sure NASCAR's top-level series has never actually raced in the rain. I know they started bringing treaded rain tires to the pair of road courses they race on a year or two ago, but I don't think they've actually used them yet.

F1 obviously does race on wet tracks with treaded tires of varying constructions ("intermediates", "full wet", "monsoon" ect.), but their tolerance for heavy rain has diminished a lot in the last decade so they'll stop a race if it's getting heavy or there is any standing water on the track.

MotoGP they'll switch bikes entirely in the pits if it starts raining since the tires are so tedious to change.

Anyway, that's all OT. Carry on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan333SP (Post 18563271)

MotoGP they'll switch bikes entirely in the pits if it starts raining since the tires are so tedious to change.

So you're saying we're not the only ones with fair weather bikes and rain bikes?

Because of the engine power and speeds involved, it seems the tires used on race cars and motor bikes would have little to do with pedal bikes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PepeM (Post 18563301)

So you're saying we're not the only ones with fair weather bikes and rain bikes?

Correct. When it rains, Valentino Rossi will go from his usual YZR-M1 carbon-chassis bike to a YZR-ALR1, which has an aluminum frame. It's not as laterally stiff but it handles the slop much better. It also has fender mounts.

The purpose of tread on a tire is to give the water a place to go, to prevent hydro-planing. That's it, tread serves no other purpose on dry pavement. 23mm bicycle tires don't need tread to displace water. The herringbone pattern on a bike tire provides a wear indicator, but that's about it.

no treads is more aero.

One of the biggest reasons treads are put on road bike tires, is that people are used to seeing treads on car tires. Car tires are much different from road bike tires, and the contact patch is shaped much differently. The shape of bicycle tires easily pushes water to the side in a way that car tires cannot because of their wider contact patch. Tread is also extremely important for car tires because of the risk of hydroplaning. With the typical pressure for road bike tires, speeds in excess of 100 mph would be required in order to hydroplane.

Bicycle Tires and Tubes

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan333SP (Post 18563326)

LOL hahaha

The tire guys at Specialized, Challenge, Vittoria and Continental all agree that tread can have a positive impact on traction in both wet and dry conditions: Technical FAQ: Tire grip in wet conditions - VeloNews.com

It doesn't really say that, "Still no data to back up the claims for road tires". It also says in the Specialized response that they are talking about less than .2mm of tread, which is .008 inch. It also mentions the tread "helping to penetrate water and oil" on the road.

I spend several dozen hours riding in the rain/wet every year. More than the vast majority of cyclists, I'm sure.

My own personal experience is that some tread is much better than no tread when riding on wet pavement. Most recently I've been riding 650b Grand Bois Hetres. These tires have longitudinal ribbing that can be seen if you zoom in on this picture: https://drandalls.files.wordpress.co...2/img_1174.jpg

When the ribs wear down the tire becomes completely smooth. Compared to when the ribs were visible and tactile I've noticed no change in behavior when riding in dry weather but the change in wet weather is very noticeable. The rear end has a tendency to break loose much earlier than before, I also get slight rear slippage when climbing out of the saddle that did not occur previously.

I noticed the same thing when riding 700c tires. Schwalbe's Lugano tire has a light file tread that worked very well with wet and dry pavement, when it wore down to slick the performance in the wet dropped off significantly.

I generally take it easy in the rain so the difference in traction just makes me more cautious. If I was planning on any performance type riding I would definitely make sure my tires had visible tread. Even if very thin.